Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Why would that give me pause for thought? It's not exactly a surprise that different people derive different interpretations of ideas they come across based on their own individual nature/ nurture.

For example, Mark David Chapman (who murdered John Lennon) was obsessed with the book Catcher in the Rye and from it formed the idea of John Lennon being a phony, because he saw God as real. By killing Lennon, Chapman hoped to save children from emulating Lennon’s godless ways. Chapman saw Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration. What Chapman took from the book does not give me pause for thought just because I also enjoyed reading Catcher in the Rye and recommended it to my children.

Because you’re conflating “interpretation” with “plain meaning”. Chapman may well have interpreted CitR that way, but there’s nothing expressly in that book that justifies it. I claim no expertise in the Quran, but as I understand it there’s some repugnant stuff there as well as the bits you like. Here for example:

“And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.”

https://quran.com/an-nisa/34

WTF?

My experience is it doesn't work without the faith. As I said in my reply to Stranger, I appear to have no desire to handicap myself by ditching the religiosity when my experience tells me I operate better if I include the religiosity.

You’re all over the place here. Do the bits of the Quran you cherry pick because you find them helpful or appealing stand alone on their merits, or do you have to embrace religious faith too for that to be the case?     

As I have said before, that's true for when people try to turn any subjective moral values into objective truths for everyone else too, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there. For example some non-religious people hold the moral belief that Hamas murdering approx. 1,200 armed and unarmed people, including women and children, on Oct 7th justifies the Israeli government murdering 50,000 people in revenge, the majority of whom are unarmed women and children. Other non-religious people don't hold that moral belief.

Singling out religious moral values as particularly problematic for you just seems to be based on your own personal tastes, not on any objective truth.

I’m not. What I’m “singling out” is the tendency of the faithful (of any stripe) to jump from subjective beliefs to objective truths, and to act accordingly. As for morality specifically, again you’re missing the point. If you think the Bible contains the inerrant moral teachings of God or the Quran contains the inerrant moral teachings of Allah then that’s the end of the matter. The (often contradictory by the way) rules are frozen as written, impervious to revision or dumping for all time no matter how barbaric the morality of the society at the time and place they were written. Secular morality on the other hand is at least open to argument, to criticism and to development as societies change over time. This isn’t to imply for one moment that morality can be objectively “true” (ie, your straw man), but it is to say that without the dead hand of religious certainty morality can at least be supported with argument, and reflective of the Zeitgeist of the society that has it etc.         

In other words, you may think you’d “handicap” yourself by, for example, not being amenable to being “disciplined” by men for your “ill-conduct”, but I don’t. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

AB thinks that being unable to find his car keys, praying to his god and then finding them is evidence for that god. There's no good reason to agree with that, but that's what he thinks "evidence" can be nonetheless.   

[Dicky Underpants]

I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are "not even wrong".

Agree with your "lack of a coherent definition  of God etc.". But The Argument from Intelligent Design is an attempt to provide "evidence" (along with the miraculous ability to find lost contact lenses).

[Nearly Sane]

Agree with your "lack of a coherent definition  of God etc.". But The Argument from Intelligent Design is an attempt to provide "evidence" (along with the miraculous ability to find lost contact lenses).

They might be attempts but without a clear definition and methodology, they are not classifiable as evidence. If intelligent design were proved tomorrow, it isn't in any sense evidence for a god. Arthur C Ckarje's sufficiently advanced species rather.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not going to look through all his posts either, but his main argument is that free will and how people think in general, is impossible to explain physically and so people's posts are evidence of God-magic.

I believe he's also claimed answered prayer as evidence, and I think I'm right in saying that he thinks evolution would be impossible without guidance.

As I said, Vlad has recently been using the argument from contingency which is a supposed deductive proof originally from Thomas Aquinas.

Ok but anecdotes about prayers etc is not presenting objective evidence of how humans or the universe works. So all he's done is present his opinion of the cause of his experiences based on his faith, and many of you pointed out his arguments were from a position of incredulity.

I also don't see that the necessary entity or argument from contingency proves the existence of the gods contained in theists' various faith beliefs - not sure if that is what Vlad is arguing either. I thought he was just using that to allow for the possibility of something not detectable by science.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

I was just illustrating that people putting forward religious claims is no more irritating/ problematic than some of the claims politicians come out with. We cope as it's all part of the human social experience of communicating narratives.

Indeed. I still don't see a need to hold faith positions about gods and so on, though. On the other hand, if it helps some people and they realise it's faith or mythology, then that's fine.

Depends what you mean by "need". Holding any position changes your perspective - holding faith is just one example of something that would influence your perspective in a particular direction e.g. if you are suffering through a difficult time faith and rituals can give you a purpose and a hope that makes it feel less difficult. If you find a benefit to things feeling less difficult than they would without faith, presumably you would embrace your faith.

I didn't claim that religion was the only cause, but people who believe literally that their God or gods exist and they are doing its/their will, have been responsible for a lot.

I agree but how is it any different to people who believe their morals are truths that need to be imposed on others, or people who believe that their nations - whether that is Israel or Russia - have a right to exist and expand, or people who believe they have a right to colonise or create empires or carve up land into nation states and allocate them to their allies or people who believe their tribe has a right to freedom or to fight for self-determination? If people did not hold such beliefs, it would remove a lot of the source of conflicts in the world.

Complicated but a combination of empathy and rules that benefit societies. I can't really see a connection to believing that beings exist without evidence.

Morals are a source of conflict - see above - that people believe in to the point they will go to war to uphold them.

I thought your issue was the conflict caused by people disagreeing with the beliefs of others? If someone believed a being exists but that person was not causing any conflict, presumably you would have little interest in their right to believe what they liked. So the issue is not the belief in a being that may or may not exist, but any conflict arising from such a belief - correct?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Because you’re conflating “interpretation” with “plain meaning”. Chapman may well have interpreted CitR that way, but there’s nothing expressly in that book that justifies it. I claim no expertise in the Quran, but as I understand it there’s some repugnant stuff there as well as the bits you like. Here for example:

“And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.”

https://quran.com/an-nisa/34

WTF?

We've discussed this so many times before and my answer has not changed.

So once again, not sure why you think your quote has a plain meaning, given the original is in Arabic, and you have quoted a translation that even a quick Wikipedia search would have told you has many differing interpretations  based on the multiple meanings that root words in Arabic have and the grammar. E.g. endings of Arabic words signify who is being addressed, and the context and previous uses of the phrases and words in the Quran can be used to infer meanings in this context.   

For example there is conflict over the meaning of "devoutly obedient" - as some scholars say the use of devout refers to obedience to Allah and is used in other parts of the Quran to require men and women to be obedient to Allah; but other Muslim scholars interpret it to mean wives should be obedient to their husbands. The interpretation selected by an individual would be influenced by the person's nature/ nurture - so I disagree that there is a plain meaning.

From your atheist perspective you interpret the words simplistically, but that's your subjective opinion, not an objective meaning. There are alternative interpretations. https://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/obedience-to-husband.html

Similarly, there is disagreement over what "ill-conduct" means e.g. is it ill-conduct in relation to Islam or specifically towards the husband; there is also disagreement about what "discipline them" means. (I assume you have no problem with marital disagreements ,discussions or a husband sleeping on the couch or leaving his wife because of irreconcilable differences so am not addressing the "advise them / don't share their bed" part).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 The line immediately before the lines you quoted sets the context of the situation where a husband and wife disagree while a husband is acting as both protector and provider. It says "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means."

So some Muslims interpret the Arabic translated as 'discipline' to mean that in a marriage where a husband is the breadwinner and financially supports his wife, ;discipline' means a symbolic gesture of using a toothpick (miswak) to tap the wife, or some Muslims think it means separate from the wife etc etc.

Not surprisingly I think I'll stick with Islam and the Quran as Muslims seem to accommodate  varying interpretations and discussions about this and many other verses. Similarly, I have not ditched British culture just because casual misogyny, objectifying women or hounding women who hold gender-critical beliefs is present in some parts of British culture.

Do the bits of the Quran you cherry pick because you find them helpful or appealing stand alone on their merits, or do you have to embrace religious faith too for that to be the case?

I can't remove my faith to know how useful the words would be on their merits so I can't answer that. My experience is that Faith - or any other emotional response- influences perspective and gives deeper meanings to the words on a page.

Also see my reply to Stranger about how faith can help people cope during times of struggle.   

I’m not. What I’m “singling out” is the tendency of the faithful (of any stripe) to jump from subjective beliefs to objective truths, and to act accordingly. As for morality specifically, again you’re missing the point. If you think the Bible contains the inerrant moral teachings of God or the Quran contains the inerrant moral teachings of Allah then that’s the end of the matter. The (often contradictory by the way) rules are frozen as written, impervious to revision or dumping for all time no matter how barbaric the morality of the society at the time and place they were written. Secular morality on the other hand is at least open to argument, to criticism and to development as societies change over time. This isn’t to imply for one moment that morality can be objectively “true” (ie, your straw man), but it is to say that without the dead hand of religious certainty morality can at least be supported with argument, and reflective of the Zeitgeist of the society that has it etc.

We've had this discussion about certainty - religious or otherwise - before - and my answer hasn't changed. I gather you don't have a problem with people who are not certain about their religious views. From previous discussions we've had, I gather you have a problem with non-religious people who express certainty about moral truths.       

In other words, you may think you’d “handicap” yourself by, for example, not being amenable to being “disciplined” by men for your “ill-conduct”, but I don’t.

That's your simplistic interpretation.

[Stranger]

Ok but anecdotes about prayers etc is not presenting objective evidence of how humans or the universe works. So all he's done is present his opinion of the cause of his experiences based on his faith, and many of you pointed out his arguments were from a position of incredulity.

I also don't see that the necessary entity or argument from contingency proves the existence of the gods contained in theists' various faith beliefs - not sure if that is what Vlad is arguing either. I thought he was just using that to allow for the possibility of something not detectable by science.

You do seem to want to 'spin' what other people are saying and I really don't see the point of arguing with you about what other forum members have been arguing. They can speak for themselves, if they so wish.

More generally, this forum is a tiny sample, and on other discussion and debate platforms it really isn't hard to find theists who absolutely think they have solid evidence or some irrefutable argument, and will say so directly and accuse you of being a blind fool for not accepting what they say. In fact, just in the last few minutes, I've been told elsewhere that I'm ignoring 'simple logic' that means there is obviously a creator.

Holding any position changes your perspective - holding faith is just one example of something that would influence your perspective in a particular direction e.g. if you are suffering through a difficult time faith and rituals can give you a purpose and a hope that makes it feel less difficult. If you find a benefit to things feeling less difficult than they would without faith, presumably you would embrace your faith.

I'll accept that that works for you and others, but I literally have no idea why holding a belief on faith alone, so pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, would help anybody with anything.

I thought your issue was the conflict caused by people disagreeing with the beliefs of others? If someone believed a being exists but that person was not causing any conflict, presumably you would have little interest in their right to believe what they liked. So the issue is not the belief in a being that may or may not exist, but any conflict arising from such a belief - correct?

People have the right to believe any nonsense they want. Nobody wants the 'thought police'. What I was saying is that a belief that somebody recognises as a personal faith position ("mythology mindset") seems bizarre to me but also harmless. The problems come when people are totally convinced of something that is almost certainly not true, and then act on it to the detriment of others. For that reason I think it sensible to discourage the latter type of belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

More generally, this forum is a tiny sample, and on other discussion and debate platforms it really isn't hard to find theists who absolutely think they have solid evidence or some irrefutable argument, and will say so directly and accuse you of being a blind fool for not accepting what they say. In fact, just in the last few minutes, I've been told elsewhere that I'm ignoring 'simple logic' that means there is obviously a creator.

I'm not on any other forum but have come across those frustrating types.

I don't see it as confined to only religious thought e.g. beliefs that the moon landings never happened, the Twin Towers were rigged with explosives, the 2020 US Presidential election was fraudulent but the 2024 election was not, widespread gun ownership makes us safer, or despite the obvious discrepancies in physical strength and speed between men and women, the belief that women who want to protect their single-sex spaces are bigots, prisoners should be housed in women's prisons and trans women should be allowed to compete against real women in sport etc etc

I'll accept that that works for you and others, but I literally have no idea why holding a belief on faith alone, so pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, would help anybody with anything.

It works for me because there is no way of establishing whether a belief in a spiritual purpose is right or wrong - so I don't conclude it's "pretty much guaranteed to be wrong".

People have the right to believe any nonsense they want. Nobody wants the 'thought police'. What I was saying is that a belief that somebody recognises as a personal faith position ("mythology mindset") seems bizarre to me but also harmless. The problems come when people are totally convinced of something that is almost certainly not true, and then act on it to the detriment of others. For that reason I think it sensible to discourage the latter type of belief.

I can agree that the problem is when people act to the detriment of others.

I can also agree that holding beliefs - religious or otherwise - that lead to people committing these detrimental acts is also problematic e.g. people who subscribe to Andrew Tate's beliefs or believe it is their patriotic duty to invade or bomb another country to protect their strategic interests, regardless of the cost to civilian lives.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

We've discussed this so many times before and my answer has not changed.

So once again, not sure why you think your quote has a plain meaning, given the original is in Arabic, and you have quoted a translation that even a quick Wikipedia search would have told you has many differing interpretations  based on the multiple meanings that root words in Arabic have and the grammar. E.g. endings of Arabic words signify who is being addressed, and the context and previous uses of the phrases and words in the Quran can be used to infer meanings in this context.   

For example there is conflict over the meaning of "devoutly obedient" - as some scholars say the use of devout refers to obedience to Allah and is used in other parts of the Quran to require men and women to be obedient to Allah; but other Muslim scholars interpret it to mean wives should be obedient to their husbands. The interpretation selected by an individual would be influenced by the person's nature/ nurture - so I disagree that there is a plain meaning.

Doesn’t work. At some point people have to agree that words have shared meanings, or they mean nothing at all. If you want to “interpret” left as meaning right, up as meaning down, black as meaning white etc all you have left is confirmation bias. Thus you don’t find bits of the Quran inspiring at all - you just find inspiring the bits that you’ve decided mean what you want them to mean, in which case why bother with the source material at all?

It gets worse: introduce the pestilential virus of “faith” and any debate about meaning becomes impossible. Certain as you may be that the various “interpretations” you like the best are correct, doubtless the head of the Taliban is just as certain about the various interpretations of the same text that he likes best (as presumably will be the author of the site I linked to). What makes you so sure that you’re right and he’s wrong? How can you arbitrate when it’s all interpretation?       

Now compare that with other fields of human endeavour where faith plays no part. Person A may say 2+2=5 and person B may say 2+2=4 for example. Person B though has the advantage reason and argument for support, so we can proceed on the basis that he’s right and person A is wrong. Can you see the difference?     

From your atheist perspective you interpret the words simplistically, but that's your subjective opinion, not an objective meaning. There are alternative interpretations.
https://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/obedience-to-husband.html

It’s got nothing to do with an “atheist perspective”, and poisoning the well with pejorative language like “simplistically” doesn’t help you either.

Similarly, there is disagreement over what "ill-conduct" means e.g. is it ill-conduct in relation to Islam or specifically towards the husband; there is also disagreement about what "discipline them" means. (I assume you have no problem with marital disagreements ,discussions or a husband sleeping on the couch or leaving his wife because of irreconcilable differences so am not addressing the "advise them / don't share their bed" part).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 The line immediately before the lines you quoted sets the context of the situation where a husband and wife disagree while a husband is acting as both protector and provider. It says "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means."

So some Muslims interpret the Arabic translated as 'discipline' to mean that in a marriage where a husband is the breadwinner and financially supports his wife, ;discipline' means a symbolic gesture of using a toothpick (miswak) to tap the wife, or some Muslims think it means separate from the wife etc etc.

So? See above.

Not surprisingly I think I'll stick with Islam and the Quran as Muslims seem to accommodate  varying interpretations and discussions about this and many other verses. Similarly, I have not ditched British culture just because casual misogyny, objectifying women or hounding women who hold gender-critical beliefs is present in some parts of British culture.

Unless you subscribe to British culture because that’s your “faith” too, that’s a false analogy. 

I can't remove my faith to know how useful the words would be on their merits so I can't answer that. My experience is that Faith - or any other emotional response- influences perspective and gives deeper meanings to the words on a page.

It also causes people to kill each other when they disagree about their different “interpretations” that suit them best. You say “deeper meaning”, I say “entrenched”. If your subjective experience is that you think your preferred meanings have become deeper because of your faith I can’t argue with that, but I can say that it’s as epistemically worthless for the rest of us as the head honcho of the Taliban saying the same thing.       

Also see my reply to Stranger about how faith can help people cope during times of struggle.

No doubt others have said he same about their countless different faiths too. Again though, in the context of what is and isn’t true, so what?     

We've had this discussion about certainty - religious or otherwise - before - and my answer hasn't changed. I gather you don't have a problem with people who are not certain about their religious views. From previous discussions we've had, I gather you have a problem with non-religious people who express certainty about moral truths.

No, I have a problem when people act on those certainties in ways that are unconscionable, and use “but that’s my faith” for justification – by flying ‘planes into office blocks for example.           

That's your simplistic interpretation.

The poisoning the well fallacy still isn’t helping you here. Besides by the way, what could be more simplistic than using “but that’s my faith” to close down any rational enquiry and investigation?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Doesn’t work. At some point people have to agree that words have shared meanings, or they mean nothing at all. If you want to “interpret” left as meaning right, up as meaning down, black as meaning white etc all you have left is confirmation bias. Thus you don’t find bits of the Quran inspiring at all - you just find inspiring the bits that you’ve decided mean what you want them to mean, in which case why bother with the source material at all?

It gets worse: introduce the pestilential virus of “faith” and any debate about meaning becomes impossible. Certain as you may be that the various “interpretations” you like the best are correct, doubtless the head of the Taliban is just as certain about the various interpretations of the same text that he likes best (as presumably will be the author of the site I linked to). What makes you so sure that you’re right and he’s wrong? How can you arbitrate when it’s all interpretation?       

Now compare that with other fields of human endeavour where faith plays no part. Person A may say 2+2=5 and person B may say 2+2=4 for example. Person B though has the advantage reason and argument for support, so we can proceed on the basis that he’s right and person A is wrong. Can you see the difference?     

It’s got nothing to do with an “atheist perspective”, and poisoning the well with pejorative language like “simplistically” doesn’t help you either.

So? See above.

Unless you subscribe to British culture because that’s your “faith” too, that’s a false analogy. 

It also causes people to kill each other when they disagree about their different “interpretations” that suit them best. You say “deeper meaning”, I say “entrenched”. If your subjective experience is that you think your preferred meanings have become deeper because of your faith I can’t argue with that, but I can say that it’s as epistemically worthless for the rest of us as the head honcho of the Taliban saying the same thing.       

No doubt others have said he same about their countless different faiths too. Again though, in the context of what is and isn’t true, so what?     

No, I have a problem when people act on those certainties in ways that are unconscionable, and use “but that’s my faith” for justification – by flying ‘planes into office blocks for example.           

The poisoning the well fallacy still isn’t helping you here. Besides by the way, what could be more simplistic than using “but that’s my faith” to close down any rational enquiry and investigation?

You used the words "plain meaning". In various dictionaries one of the meanings of "plain" is "simple". Your faith that philosophical ideas have a "plain meaning" is simplistic. 

As for the rest of your claims in your post - we've argued this before and I did not accept your claims and assertions before for the reasons I gave you before, and I still do not accept your claims now for the same reasons.

I don't agree that people have to agree on the meaning of Arabic words conveying philosophical ideas about relationships. The evidence clearly shows they don't agree and that there are a range of interpretations and discussions about the meaning. If you don't want to accept that, I can't help you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

   

No, I have a problem when people act on those certainties in ways that are unconscionable, and use “but that’s my faith” for justification – by flying ‘planes into office blocks for example.           

Presumably you have a problem with "unconscionable acts" that are justified by economic or strategic interests rather than religious faith - such as collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US.

Your Twin Towers example doesn't work. There was no simplistic "but that's my faith" as you claim. As before you'll probably run away rather than address the points in Bin Laden's letter stating his motivation for the attack on the Twin Towers was US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children etc. 

[Gordon]

I suppose the obvious question is, when it comes to religious texts that are viewed differently as regards interpretation, why over the centuries someone hasn't developed a definitive set of interpretations in each case that followers can sign up to and not argue about.

After all, if different interpretations have validity for some subsets of followers but are regarded as invalid by others subsets, that surely wholly undermines the general value of these texts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You used the words "plain meaning". In various dictionaries one of the meanings of "plain" is "simple". Your faith that philosophical ideas have a "plain meaning" is simplistic.

Playing with ambiguities doesn’t get you off the hook either. “A triangle is a three-sided shape” is simple, but not “simplistic”. You need to learn the difference. 

As for the rest of your claims in your post - we've argued this before and I did not accept your claims and assertions before for the reasons I gave you before, and I still do not accept your claims now for the same reasons.

They’re arguments, and your avoidance of them is noted.

I don't agree that people have to agree on the meaning of Arabic words conveying philosophical ideas about relationships. The evidence clearly shows they don't agree and that there are a range of interpretations and discussions about the meaning. If you don't want to accept that, I can't help you.

People have to agree on the common meanings of words in any language if those languages aren’t to mean just whatever each person wants them to mean. That’s the point - if everything is “interpretation”, there’s no reason to take your personal interpretation any more seriously than the personal interpretation of the Taliban. You can duck and dive all you like about this, but hiding behind “but that’s my interpretation (and what’s more it’s “deepened” by my faith)” is arbitrary unless you can anchor it to agreed common meanings.         

Presumably you have a problem with "unconscionable acts" that are justified by economic or strategic interests rather than religious faith - such as collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US.

Yes, but again you’re conflating faith-based acts with non faith-based acts. “…collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US” is a particularly bad analogue because so much of that conflict is rooted in faith beliefs too, but dropping nuclear weapons on Japan would be a better one. You can argue a lot about the morality of that, but at least you can argue about it with reason and evidence without either side resorting to “but that’s my faith” to shut down the debate.   

Your Twin Towers example doesn't work. There was no simplistic "but that's my faith" as you claim. As before you'll probably run away…

I didn’t.

…rather than address the points in Bin Laden's letter stating his motivation for the attack on the Twin Towers was US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children etc.

Just out of interest, what do you suppose the hijackers were shouting even as they flew the ‘planes into the towers? “This is justifiable because of US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children”, or “Allahu Akbar”? How much luck do you think Bin Laden would have had recruiting the hijackers without an escape plan if they weren’t inspired by their blind faith?

Take your time.   

[Nearly Sane]

I suppose the obvious question is, when it comes to religious texts that are viewed differently as regards interpretation, why over the centuries someone hasn't developed a definitive set of interpretations in each case that followers can sign up to and not argue about.

After all, if different interpretations have validity for some subsets of followers but are regarded as invalid by others subsets, that surely wholly undermines the general value of these texts.

You can't test such stuff as you might science, and even in science knowledge is only provisional. We haven't got to any certainty on the meaning of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, Shall I Compare Thee To A summer's Day and it's only 14 lines.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I suppose the obvious question is, when it comes to religious texts that are viewed differently as regards interpretation, why over the centuries someone hasn't developed a definitive set of interpretations in each case that followers can sign up to and not argue about.

Who would you suggest do that and what method would they use to get the rest of the population to agree with their 'definitive' interpretation?

After all, if different interpretations have validity for some subsets of followers but are regarded as invalid by others subsets, that surely wholly undermines the general value of these texts.

Yes - similar to written constitutions and laws that we have and interpret and argue over and higher courts overturn decisions by lower courts. The text is for humans to interpret - that's part of being human and what humans do.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Playing with ambiguities doesn’t get you off the hook either. “A triangle is a three-sided shape” is simple, but not “simplistic”. You need to learn the difference. 

Comparing philosophical ideas to simple maths does not get you off the hook either. You need to learn the difference.

They’re arguments, and your avoidance of them is noted.

They're simplistic assertions that your tedious repetition of them ad nauseum is noted. 

People have to agree on the common meanings of words in any language if those languages aren’t to mean just whatever each person wants them to mean. That’s the point - if everything is “interpretation”, there’s no reason to take your personal interpretation any more seriously than the personal interpretation of the Taliban. You can duck and dive all you like about this, but hiding behind “but that’s my interpretation (and what’s more it’s “deepened” by my faith)” is arbitrary unless you can anchor it to agreed common meanings.   

You can keep making assertions that everyone has to agree on philosophical abstract ideas all you want. Philosophers will disagree with you. The evidence of the numerous different interpretations of the meanings of verses of the Quran shows you're wrong. Accept it and move on. 

Yes, but again you’re conflating faith-based acts with non faith-based acts. “…collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US” is a particularly bad analogue because so much of that conflict is rooted in faith beliefs too, but dropping nuclear weapons on Japan would be a better one. You can argue a lot about the morality of that, but at least you can argue about it with reason and evidence without either side resorting to “but that’s my faith” to shut down the debate.

And again you're making unevidenced assertions about acts being justified by simplistic statements such as "that's my faith".

I didn’t.

Actually so much of that conflict is rooted in land theft. And feel free to actually address the points in Bin Laden's letter stating why he attacked America rather than ducking and diving. 

Just out of interest, what do you suppose the hijackers were shouting even as they flew the ‘planes into the towers? “This is justifiable because of US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children”, or “Allahu Akbar”? How much luck do you think Bin Laden would have had recruiting the hijackers without an escape plan if they weren’t inspired by their blind faith?

Take your time.   

So you're still ducking and diving instead of addressing the points raised in Bin Laden's letter about territorial theft, colonialism, military attacks on Muslim countries.

Why would they even be attacking America - do you have any evidence they woke up one morning and for no reason whatsoever they suddenly believed God spoke to them and told them to attack America while America was sitting there peacefully minding its own business and doing good works throughout the world?

[Stranger]

I'm not on any other forum but have come across those frustrating types.

I don't see it as confined to only religious thought...

I agree that irrationality is common and definitely not confined to religion.

It works for me because there is no way of establishing whether a belief in a spiritual purpose is right or wrong - so I don't conclude it's "pretty much guaranteed to be wrong".

This I don't get. If it's just faith without evidence, then it can be no more likely than a guess. Since there is a vast 'space' of possible truths that go beyond what we know, I'd say that the chance of any guess being right is as close to zero as makes no difference.

I can agree that the problem is when people act to the detriment of others.

I can also agree that holding beliefs - religious or otherwise - that lead to people committing these detrimental acts is also problematic e.g. people who subscribe to Andrew Tate's beliefs or believe it is their patriotic duty to invade or bomb another country to protect their strategic interests, regardless of the cost to civilian lives.

Again, I agree, but religion was the subject and taking a religious belief to be a clear unquestionable and objective truth is one of the ways these sorts of things happen.

[Gordon]

Who would you suggest do that and what method would they use to get the rest of the population to agree with their 'definitive' interpretation?

No idea - even if there can be no testable precision, I just find it odd that there isn't at least a commonly shared understanding of text that has been extant for centuries.

Yes - similar to written constitutions and laws that we have and interpret and argue over and higher courts overturn decisions by lower courts. The text is for humans to interpret - that's part of being human and what humans do.

But the difference there is that constitutions and laws can be subject to revision or even removal whereas, it seems to me, that religious texts can be treated as being sacrosanct and forever fixed.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

And on the seventh day he rested✝️❤️ I think that is a definite clue that God was not married

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

 "As-Salam-u-Alaikum" Hope that is right

It is a joy to read your posts, thank you.

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree that irrationality is common and definitely not confined to religion.

This I don't get. If it's just faith without evidence, then it can be no more likely than a guess. Since there is a vast 'space' of possible truths that go beyond what we know, I'd say that the chance of any guess being right is as close to zero as makes no difference.

Is the 'existence of god' part related to a faith the most important part of the equation for you and you can't see or progress any further until that issue has been put to bed definitively one way or the other?

I can't speak for other theists but for me the existence or not of god is really low down on my list of priorities in assessing religion because faith provides me with something that knowledge does not. It's not something that is based on logic, where you can examine it and determine what is right or wrong - I don't see any formula to be applied so it's not really something that can be explained to someone else, as one person's experience of faith will probably be different from someone else's. 

The simplicity of one god as opposed to many is appealing, but I guess my faith is in what god represents. My faith is in allowing the possibility of a higher accountability. As there is no method to assess this abstract concept I'm not focusing on whether the guess is right or wrong, I'm enjoying the experience of guessing - I'm enjoying faith. 

For example, it's currently the month of Ramadan in the Islamic calendar. My experience is that if I try to fast any other month, I find it very difficult. But in Ramadan fasting is easy, and gets easier as we go through the month, praying is easier in Ramadan and gets easier as the month goes on.

If I tried to diet or refrain from eating or drinking anything for any other reason than Ramadan, I probably would not last more than 4 hours because i am not doing it as an act of faith. And I sense that these acts of faith - fasting and praying - are having hugely beneficial effects on me - e.g. on my physical, mental and emotional health, my happiness, my intentions and my behaviour.

Again, I agree, but religion was the subject and taking a religious belief to be a clear unquestionable and objective truth is one of the ways these sorts of things happen.

Sure - objective truth is not something I am seeking in something as abstract as religion or beliefs of any kind but yes I can see having an unquestionable mindset about a belief is problematic.   

[Gonnagle]

Is the 'existence of god' part related to a faith the most important part of the equation for you and you can't see or progress any further until that issue has been put to bed definitively one way or the other?

I can't speak for other theists but for me the existence or not of god is really low down on my list of priorities in assessing religion because faith provides me with something that knowledge does not. It's not something that is based on logic, where you can examine it and determine what is right or wrong - I don't see any formula to be applied so it's not really something that can be explained to someone else, as one person's experience of faith will probably be different from someone else's. 

The simplicity of one god as opposed to many is appealing, but I guess my faith is in what god represents. My faith is in allowing the possibility of a higher accountability. As there is no method to assess this abstract concept I'm not focusing on whether the guess is right or wrong, I'm enjoying the experience of guessing - I'm enjoying faith. 

For example, it's currently the month of Ramadan in the Islamic calendar. My experience is that if I try to fast any other month, I find it very difficult. But in Ramadan fasting is easy, and gets easier as we go through the month, praying is easier in Ramadan and gets easier as the month goes on.

If I tried to diet or refrain from eating or drinking anything for any other reason than Ramadan, I probably would not last more than 4 hours because i am not doing it as an act of faith. And I sense that these acts of faith - fasting and praying - are having hugely beneficial effects on me - e.g. on my physical, mental and emotional health, my happiness, my intentions and my behaviour.
 Sure - objective truth is not something I am seeking in something as abstract as religion or beliefs of any kind but yes I can see having an unquestionable mindset about a belief is problematic.

Dear Gabriella,

You can speak for me❤️

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No idea - even if there can be no testable precision, I just find it odd that there isn't at least a commonly shared understanding of text that has been extant for centuries.

There are some broadly shared understandings. For example, I read that there are about 1.8 billion Muslims fasting during the month of Ramadan - not just abstaining from eating or drinking anything between dawn and sunset in whichever part of the world they are but also trying to abstain from getting angry, talking badly about others, and trying to do good deeds and give 2.5% or more of their wealth (the value of their savings and investments including money and precious metals) each Ramadan in charity - based on a shared understanding of the text.

At the same time, fasting is not meant to be an unreasonable hardship so there are verses on circumstances where you don't have to fast that are open to individual interpretation e.g. [Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] – then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] – a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person [each day]. And whoever volunteers excess – it is better for him. But to fast is best for you, if you only knew.

It is open to interpretation as to who is "ill" or how far you have to travel to be considered on "a journey" or what circumstances are considered sufficient "hardship" to not have to fast and to feed a poor person instead.

And other verses about relationships and morality are for humans to interpret based on context, circumstances, time period etc.

The belief in accountability and acting intentionally and taking responsibility for your actions and interpretations is a broadly shared understanding of the text.

But the difference there is that constitutions and laws can be subject to revision or even removal whereas, it seems to me, that religious texts can be treated as being sacrosanct and forever fixed.

Yes  - but the reality is that the interpretations of the religious text still changes over time and geography - if you look at different Muslim countries and communities in different time periods they all have different interpretations of many parts of the text but also agree on many parts. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

 "As-Salam-u-Alaikum" Hope that is right

It is a joy to read your posts, thank you.

Gonnagle.

W'alaikum salaam Gonnagle  - thank you and I really enjoyed reading your OP and thread and all the responses it generated. I have not been on here much, so it was an extremely welcome surprise to come back and find you on here and posting great stuff - you really give this forum a fantastic boost! ❤️

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

Thank you.

Gonnagle.